Summons question

chem

I was board the other day and desided to go to the best show in town. The District court!

It started out with one man in handcuffs, shouting "All rise" to which everyone stood up in the court expecting the judge to appear! When he didnt everyone laughed and set down again

One young lad when his case was called, didnt know who his solicitor was when asked by the judge! More laughter, from the crowd

But back to my question. I noticed that the first part of the day were cases of Garda XYZ v Joe Bloggs. The other half were the DPP v Joe Bloggs.

Whats the difference? It was still a Garda giving evidence in both cases.

One case got me wondering. The case was struck out because the Garda was late putting in the summons. Do the Gardai have to apply for a summons? I would have taught that with any case, the Garda supplied the evidence to the DPP, they make a call on the law and its sent back to the Garda? How long do the Gardai have to issue a summons? It was said in the court that this case was an arrestable offence are not all crimes an arrestable offence?

Im sorry if this seems like some stupid questioning by me, to those in the know. But I am a chemist not a solicitor by profession.

MagicSean

Six months from the date of the offence.

chem

k_mac wrote: »

Six months from the date of the offence.

Thanks K mac. But why should the case even make it to court if the 6 months rule was passed. Is this not a waist of the courts time?

bath handle

It is six months to apply for the summons. It may get to court after that. The six months is a matter for the defence to raise. If the defence don't bring it up the judge will convict. A lot of people end up convicted of minor offences because of a lack of competent advice.

chem

bath handle wrote: »

It is six months to apply for the summons. It may get to court after that. The six months is a matter for the defence to raise. If the defence don't bring it up the judge will convict. A lot of people end up convicted of minor offences because of a lack of competent advice.

WOW bath handle. So some people get convicted when they should not? What about the whole arrestable offence thing? Looked it up and from what I can make of it, it should be a jury trial. Yet it was in the DC?

MagicSean

chem wrote: »

WOW bath handle. So some people get convicted when they should not? What about the whole arrestable offence thing? Looked it up and from what I can make of it, it should be a jury trial. Yet it was in the DC?

Not if it is dealt with summarily.Theft is a good example. Arrestable offence but is often dealt with in District Court.

Reloc8

The Garda prosecutes in the name of the DPP. Strictly speaking the proceedings are entitled 'DPP at the suit of Garda Bloggs v John Doe'. That is the case in every prosecution be it summary or otherwise. A Court List may functionally distinguish between cases where the garda who is the complainant is also prosecuting and those where his senior officer or the office of the DPP is dealing with the case as representation for the prosecutor.

Its not correct to say there is a limit of six months for the application to have a summons issue. Its six months for most but not all summary offences, and there is no time limit for any indictable offence.

The summons applied for outside six months will be issued and made returnable because its not for the District Court office to make a determination on whether it is in or outside time - that's a judicial function for a start and equally there are many exceptions to the rule.

The real distinction between whether something goes on in the District Court or before a jury is whether it is indictable as opposed to summary only. An arrestable offence carries a sentence of five years or more on conviction. Not all indictable offences are arrestable. All that an offence being 'arrestable' means is that a person can be arrested for it in certain wider circumstances than otherwise. It has absolutely nothing to do with jurisdiction.

Offences which are summary only are heard in the district court unless they are part of an indictment before a jury. Offences which are indictable can be heard before District or Circuit/Central Criminal Court (or special criminal court) subject to the view of the DPP, the view of the District Court and the accused who has a choice in respect of some offences.

Bath handle is not correct to say that if the six month issue is not raised a judge will convict. District Court summary only matters are very frequently struck out by a judge of their own motion on the basis of a time limit having been exceeded. To say 'a lot of people are convicted because of a lot of competent advice' is of course impossible to disprove but is akin to a statement along the lines of 'a lot of people who get sick die because of a lack of competent treatment'.

bath handle

I was answering the o/p s question about the specific case he saw not giving a treatise on criminal procedure. The six month limit or any limit is a for the defence as held in plunkett vo burke. It not a matter for the prosecution to prove or for the judge to enquire into of his own motion. It happens every day judges in the systemof th week that people plead guilty to offences where a lawyer might have got them off. That is the way the system works.

johnnyskeleton

chem wrote: »

I was board the other day and desided to go to the best show in town. The District court!

The circuit court is usually more fun, although there are a lot more, and a lot longer, boring bits.

chem wrote: »

I would have taught that with any case, the Garda supplied the evidence to the DPP, they make a call on the law and its sent back to the Garda?

Just by the way, there are approximately 520-550,000 crimes prosecuted each year (source p.51) and approximately 12k case files are referred to the DPP (source p.26). The rest are either summary only or else are dealt with on the basis of delegated authority for the DPP (the sergeant goes into a secret room where there are a bunch of manitees in a tank. They press a button and the manintee swims over and picks up a floating ball. If it is a red ball they go for trial on indictment, if it is a yellow ball they go summarily. Due to budget restraints, all the red balls have been taken out and replaced by yellow balls. The manitees are not impressed, and have threatened strike action).

Reloc8

bath handle wrote: »

I was answering the o/p s question about the specific case he saw not giving a treatise on criminal procedure. The six month limit or any limit is a for the defence as held in plunkett vo burke. It not a matter for the prosecution to prove or for the judge to enquire into of his own motion. It happens every day judges in the systemof th week that people plead guilty to offences where a lawyer might have got them off. That is the way the system works.

Perhaps you mean Byrne v Plunkett Unreported 1st of July 1985 Finlay P.

All that says is that if the Defence raise it the prosecution must prove that a complaint was made within time.

It doesn't in any way affect the obligation of any judge to ensure a) that they have jurisdiction and b) that a trial in due course of law is held.

Practical experience would indicate that a district judge will raise any matter with the prosecution which they consider necessary to raise.

In any event you it does not seem possible to argue anything except on an anecdotal level with you and your experience and beliefs whilst no doubt perfectly valid are not capable of disproof here.

bath handle

It was darcy j. Held " there are some cases in which the prosecution must prove every aspect of their case without being called to do so. There are some cases such as this where it is open to the defence to call on the prosecution to prove something." it was repeatedly emphasised that the six months did not go to jurisdiction. What some dj s do in practice does not change the law.

Reloc8

Apologies - it was indeed the judge you mention.

The summary I have given of the ambit of the decision remains accurate.

The point about jurisdiction is simply that the court is not prevented from enquiring into whether the six month limit applies and has been breached by virtue of the fact that on the face of the summons it appears that this may be so, i.e. the content of the summons does not prevent.

In other words, compliance with the six month limit where necessary is not a precondition to jurisdiction being exercised (otherwise the court would have no power to commence a hearing into whether there was or was not compliance which would be a bit of a nonsense) but where the six month limit applies and is found not to have been complied with, the court has no jurisdiction to proceed to a hearing of the complaint, insofar as were the six month limit to be breached in a case where it applies, the court would be obliged to dismiss the charge.

Just because something is 'a matter of Defence' does not prevent a court from raising it of its own motion, and that happens, all the time, especially in case of summary offences where the summons has been applied for late.

Kosseegan

There are matters a court is obliged to have proved in some cases. If a defendant does not show and a case is going ahead positive proof has to be given of certain facts, otherwise no case. Some DKs take over a case for one side or other. It happens frequently but is wrong.

Mary Donnelly , Plaintiff v. Timber Factors Limited and Robert Rogers,
[1991] 553 1 I.R.

"The role of the judge of trial in maintaining an even balance will require that on occasion he must intervene in the questioning of witnesses with questions of his own - the purpose being to clarify the unclear, to complete the incomplete, to elaborate the inadequate and to truncate the long-winded. It is not to embellish, to emphasise or, save rarely, to criticise. That is the function of counsel. The casual by-stander on seeing and hearing repeated judicial intervention may well conclude that issues in the case or the case itself are being decided before the evidence and the submissions are complete: if the casual by-stander may do so, how much more so the interested party, the litigant. This division of role between judge and advocate was always important in civil trials by jury; it is more important now that claims for damages for personal injuries are no longer tried by juries."

coylemj

chem wrote: »

But back to my question. I noticed that the first part of the day were cases of Garda XYZ v Joe Bloggs. The other half were the DPP v Joe Bloggs.

Whats the difference? It was still a Garda giving evidence in both cases.

If the case was initiated by a Garda and is being prosecuted by him/her then normally the Garda member is listed as the complainant so the case will be called as Garda Joe Murphy vs. A.N. Other. Some Gardai may name 'The DPP at the suit of Garda Joe Bloggs' as the complainant but there are also cases where the State Solicitor gets involved because the case is complex or it may be defended by a barrister and in these cases the complainant is normally listed as the DPP and although the Garda may give evidence, the case will be prosecuted by the state solicitor or a barrister briefed by him.

In the higher courts the complainant in criminal cases is always 'The People' in accordance with Article 30.3 of the Constitution....

All crimes and offences prosecuted in any court constituted under Article 34 of this Constitution other than a court of summary jurisdiction shall be prosecuted in the name of the People and at the suit of the Attorney General or some other person authorised in accordance with law to act for that purpose.

maradonna7

Just a quick question I was hoping someone on here might know the answer to.

My brother received a summons this morning for a motoring offence that took place 20 September 2009.

The complaint to the district court was issued within the six month time limit (date in January 2010).

My question is this, is there a limit for issue of summons by the district court thereafter or is this indefinite?

The summons was received some 13 months after the date at which complaint was made by the Garda in question to the District court and some 17 months after the happening of the event.

Any help would be appreciated

bath handle

The summons may have been issued soon after it was applied for but not sered. the summons should recite the date of issue as well as the day it was applied for.

maradonna7

bath handle wrote: »

The summons may have been issued soon after it was applied for but not sered. the summons should recite the date of issue as well as the day it was applied for.

I think you've missed the point of my question bath handle, the complaint was made within the 6 month time limit.

My question is whether or not a time limit then applies for the issue of the summons from the District court / clerk as this had taken 13 months

Our man in Havana

No, there is no time limit so long as the summons is served on the defendant 7 clear days before the court.

Now there may be an argument that the defendants constitutional rights were infringed by undue delay. There have been cases dismissed due to undue delay.

coylemj

If your brother's chances of defending the charge was compromised by the delay e.g. if it's careless or dangerous driving and people's memory can't be relied on, then he has a good case to get the charge(s) thrown out.

While there's no time limit imposed on the Gardai in terms of how long they have between kicking off the process and serving the summons, it does seem strange that they started the process within the time limit but the court date was set for over a year later.

If, however, the delay in service was as a result of any action on his part e.g. moving address a few times, then he may not have much success pursuing this line of defence.

bath handle

maradonna7 wrote: »

I think you've missed the point of my question bath handle, the complaint was made within the 6 month time limit.

My question is whether or not a time limit then applies for the issue of the summons from the District court / clerk as this had taken 13 months

you are missing my point. The summons is issued when the clerk gives it to the guard not when the defendant gets it. The summons may have been issued to the guard who did not serve it for months after. This may or may not be significant.

There is a possibility something might be made of the delay in the case but there are three distinct actions. Application, issue and service. Where did the delay occur and why?

maradonna7

bath handle wrote: »

you are missing my point. The summons is issued when the clerk gives it to the guard not when the defendant gets it. The summons may have been issued to the guard who did not serve it for months after. This may or may not be significant.

There is a possibility something might be made of the delay in the case but there are three distinct actions. Application, issue and service. Where did the delay occur and why?

The event happend 20 September 2009, the application was made January 2010, the District court / clerk issued notice December 2010 and the summons was physically issued to him 21 February 2011

Are the dates of issue and service significant?

MagicSean

Could it be a second issue of the summons?

Reloc8

maradonna7 wrote: »

My question is this, is there a limit for issue of summons by the district court thereafter or is this indefinite?

No specified time limit. Any delay in serving the summons must however not be inordinate. If it is inordinate without good excuse, the case may be dismissed, in respect of summary offences. A point in this regard is particularly strong where a specific prejudice arising from the delay can be credibly made.

maradonna7 wrote: »

I think you've missed the point of my question bath handle, the complaint was made within the 6 month time limit.

My question is whether or not a time limit then applies for the issue of the summons from the District court / clerk as this had taken 13 months

No there is no time limit subject to the above.

maradonna7 wrote: »

The event happend 20 September 2009, the application was made January 2010, the District court / clerk issued notice December 2010 and the summons was physically issued to him 21 February 2011

Are the dates of issue and service significant?

The dates of issue and service are not significant subject to the foregoing. The date of issue does not have any real significance except insofar as any delay in issue to the garda necessarily causes delay in service, and therefore the possibility of inordinate and inexcusable delay is greater where there is delay between application and issue.

maradonna7

Reloc8 thanks for your response that was very helpful